Main challenges and key features of indicator-based agroecological assessment frameworks in the context of international cooperation

Agroecology increasingly gains importance in the discussion about sustainable food systems. To facilitate the transition from conventional farming to agroecological farming, adequate methods and concepts to measure and assess impact and productivity of agroecological farming systems (AFSs) are needed, which consider their multifunctionality and other specific characteristics, here called agroecological sustainability assessment frameworks and tools (ASAFTs). In the past years, many agricultural sustainability assessment tools and frameworks were developed but their suitability and applicability to AFSs was not investigated. To close this knowledge gap, we aimed at identifying, reviewing, and discussing published ASAFTs in the context of international cooperation, providing an overview of the current challenges, needs, and requirements in assessing AFSs at the farm level with the means of indicators. Desktop and scientific database research was conducted to identify and discuss published indicator-based ASAFTs at the farm level. The analysis was based on the following four framework elements that the authors considered to be essential for ASAFTs: (1) the adaptability to local conditions all over the world, (2) the involvement of farmers in the development process, (3) the consideration of the multiple functions of an agroecosystem in the definition and measurement of its productivity, and (4) the accounting for interactions between multiple agroecosystem functions and their measurement. Only a few analyzed assessment frameworks at least partly consider these essential elements and were designed specifically for AFSs. However, our study also showed that these frameworks were (1) restricted in their geographical application scope, (2) quite heterogeneous and barely comparable, and (3) based on productivity indicators that do not fully capture the multiple functions of AFSs. Therefore, we identified the need for the development of appropriate agroecological productivity indicators and common standard or reference frameworks for assessing AFSs, which will be crucial for upscaling agroecology

Barriers to evidence use for sustainability: Insights from pesticide policy and practice.

Calls for supporting sustainability through more and better research rest on an incomplete understanding of scientific evidence use. We argue that a variety of barriers to a transformative impact of evidence arises from diverse actor motivations within different stages of evidence use. We abductively specify this variety in policy and practice arenas for three actor motivations (truth-seeking, sense-making, and utility-maximizing) and five stages (evidence production, uptake, influence on decisions, effects on sustainability outcomes, and feedback from outcome evaluations). Our interdisciplinary synthesis focuses on the sustainability challenge of reducing environmental and human health risks of agricultural pesticides. It identifies barriers resulting from (1) truth-seekers' desire to reduce uncertainty that is complicated by evidence gaps, (2) sense-makers' evidence needs that differ from the type of evidence available, and (3) utility-maximizers' interests that guide strategic evidence use. We outline context-specific research-policy-practice measures to increase evidence use for sustainable transformation in pesticides and beyond

Barriers to evidence use for sustainability: Insights from pesticide policy and practice

Calls for supporting sustainability through more and better research rest on an incomplete understanding of scientific evidence use. We argue that a variety of barriers to a transformative impact of evidence arises from diverse actor motivations within different stages of evidence use. We abductively specify this variety in policy and practice arenas for three actor motivations (truth-seeking, sense-making, and utility-maximizing) and five stages (evidence production, uptake, influence on decisions, effects on sustainability outcomes, and feedback from outcome evaluations). Our interdisciplinary synthesis focuses on the sustainability challenge of reducing environmental and human health risks of agricultural pesticides. It identifies barriers resulting from (1) truth-seekers’ desire to reduce uncertainty that is complicated by evidence gaps, (2) sense-makers’ evidence needs that differ from the type of evidence available, and (3) utility-maximizers’ interests that guide strategic evidence use. We outline context-specific research–policy–practice measures to increase evidence use for sustainable transformation in pesticides and beyond

Barriers to evidence use for sustainability: Insights from pesticide policy and practice

Calls for supporting sustainability through more and better research rest on an incomplete understanding of scientific evidence use. We argue that a variety of barriers to a transformative impact of evidence arises from diverse actor motivations within different stages of evidence use. We abductively specify this variety in policy and practice arenas for three actor motivations (truth-seeking, sense-making, and utility-maximizing) and five stages (evidence production, uptake, influence on decisions, effects on sustainability outcomes, and feedback from outcome evaluations). Our interdisciplinary synthesis focuses on the sustainability challenge of reducing environmental and human health risks of agricultural pesticides. It identifies barriers resulting from (1) truth-seekers’ desire to reduce uncertainty that is complicated by evidence gaps, (2) sense-makers’ evidence needs that differ from the type of evidence available, and (3) utility-maximizers’ interests that guide strategic evidence use. We outline context-specific research–policy–practice measures to increase evidence use for sustainable transformation in pesticides and beyond.ISSN:0044-7447ISSN:1654-720